From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 22:57:11 +0200 From: Antonio Quartulli Message-ID: <20110508205711.GE4631@ritirata.org> References: <1304579589-5222-1-git-send-email-ordex@autistici.org> <1304579589-5222-4-git-send-email-ordex@autistici.org> <20110505134649.GD1528@lunn.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110505134649.GD1528@lunn.ch> Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH 3/3] batman-adv: improved gateway tq-based selection Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking On gio, mag 05, 2011 at 03:46:49 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 09:13:09AM +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote: > > + /* If old_gw != NULL then this packet is unicast. > > + * So, at this point it can only be a renewal packet (because it is the > > + * only dhcp client message sent as unicast) and we have to decide > > + * whether to drop it or not */ > > What about the release message? Is that not also unicast? > You are right (dhcpdecline is unicast too). I have to inspect the dhcp header and look at the message type option. > > + if (old_gw && curr_gw->orig_node != old_gw) { > > + /* If the dhcp packet has been sent to a different gw, we have > > + * to evaluate whether the old gw is still enough reliable */ > > still reliable enough. > Thanks! -- Antonio Quartulli ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara